Scott Adams (yes, of Dilbert) has a weblog. Who knew? (Well, a whole lot more people than know about Lies.com, clearly, judging by the volume of his comments.)

And it’s not just some marketing come-on exhorting you to read the comic strip. It’s a real, grown-up weblog, running on Typepad and with an open comments section. And Adams writes about real, grown-up weblog topics. As in this recent posting, on why we should leave Iraq: Complicated decisions.

One Response to “Scott Adams: We Should Leave Iraq. Here’s Why.”

There are two terribly paralyzing cans tied to the
tail of US troops patrolling anywhere in Iraq: 1) oil
and 2) Israel’s interests via the neocons. The first
has been dealt with only by the Vice President under a
cover of official secrecy. And the behavior of Mr.
Bremer went a long way to suggest that Iraq’s oil
might well have become the exclusive property ad
perpetum, were it not for the UN’s intervention in
making clear that such contracts were not allowed by
the occupying power. The second is down right
outrageous. The neocon mantra– if it’s good for
Israel it HAS GOT TO BE GOOD for America– has tainted
every single American move in the Mideast. It has made
the US occupation a cover for Mossad fragmentation of
Iraqi ethnic-religious groups. The irony of Bush
turning Iraq over to Iran run Shia (SCIRI) state at
the expense of Iraqi nationalists Shia (so recognized
even by the Sunnis) under Sadr while the US seeks to
impose loss of Shia Hezbollah domination of Lebanon,
though it is the largest group in that country (Shia
also a majority), has confounded the meaning of the
American role in the Mideast.

The Woodward book seems to miss one critical component
of the Rumsfeld Saga. While Bush was the presidential
candidate neocon seed-money financed in the early
march trough the Republican primaries of 2000,
Rumsfeld was their key man. He and his troll, Cheney,
were advised to join the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld
was told to take DoD and win a quick war in Iraq to
make himself famous. Then, since they insisted Bush
would not survive to a second term, he could be the
Republican hero to step into the candidacy. At the
same time, utterly incompetent but inbred
neocon-juniors were put all through DoD to dilute
Wolfowitz and assure that Rummy abides by the neocon
program. The old Bolsheviks once more got their way as
shadows influencing their man. The key to this
operation’s Iraq occupation was Bremer. For he informs
us the the pulverization of the Iraqi military and
civil service was ordered, not by Rumsfeld, but by
Feist. That way, Rumsfeld evades blame for
short-circuiting the oblivious president and the
neocons get the digested and helpless Iraq they
wanted…an Iraq, ready for Chalabi to take-over;
that’s what they wanted.

Unfortunately for them, Bush was fully informed by the
CIA that Chalabi is run by the Iranians. And so,
Frankiln got that to them through AIPAC a bit too
late. Chalabi was cut off and arrested trough a
DoS-Iraqi Provisional Govt. maneuver that Bremer was
not privy to; and so, DoD was stuck occupying Iraq
without a plan, Rumsfeld having thrown the
British-American occupation plan into the garbage
before the invasion. Sec. of State Powell had insisted
on DoD exclusive responsibility for Iraq so that Rummy
alone would be blamed for the failure.

Israel got the pulverized Ba’athist Party it wanted so
that it would no longer be a threat to it– hoping
that Syria would be the next– but, as Netanyahu had
predicted, the giant American ally was now stuck in
and sinking in Iraq, despite Israeli assistance and
advice on how to occupy an Arab land. Not long after,
the neocons– diagnosed already as abnormal by
Sharon– desperately sought to extend the American
invasion to Syria, then Iran, but to no avail.

Bush DID survive to win a second term and he kept
Rumsfeld in office so that Rummy can be made to take
blame for Iraq from soup to nuts when the time to
pull-out comes. Cheney was kept on the ticket, but
after victory was isolated, while Rice– with a full
green light form the President– revitalized DoS as
the operative control of US foreign policy.

Before the invasion by US forces, like all other
Arabs, knowing he could not hold back the US, Saddam
planned a Stalin-type resistance for after the
Americans take Baghdad. Then, seeing themselves with
no income while Halliburton, for its own security,
flooded Iraq with Third Country nationals as
employees, the hardest hit by the unemployment, the
Sunnis, flocked to the Ba’athists Resistance. Bremer
thought that Alawi was a secular alternative for
Chalabi. But all in all, from the wild days of looting
onward, Iraqis came to conclude by observing the
Bremer-run occupation that the Americans in-country
are both idiots and crooks. Last count, $9 billion
worth of “reconstruction” aid is missing. Two strands
developed amongst gun-abled men in Iraq: 1) hate of
occupation and revenge seeking in return for violence
and insult visited on their families by US troops; 2)
criminality– this is the largest group– forming
gangs or selling services (you can have anyone killed
in Baghdad for $20) and other illicit activities who
today are responsible for most of the killing of
civilians as they carve out fiefs.

There is now only one solution possible: FOR AMERICA
TO ANNOUNCE A DATE SET BY WHICH IT WILL REMOVE ALL
TROOPS. Incompetence is forgivable should it be clear
that the occupation will come to an end. But America’s
good-will is unbelievable when the issue is continued
occupation. An thus, no Iraqi leader is believable
when sustained by the occupiers. Any contact with
Americans leads to discrediting of the involved Iraqi.
Only the SCIRI officials can get away with it because
they are known to be Iran stooges and are duly
supported efficiently and lavishly.

The key issue is that Americans are staying in Iraq
for a reason– most assumed by Iraqis are reasons in
support of US or Israeli interests. Currently, most
violence is visited by Shia and Sunni gangsters on the
professional class of both Shia and Sunni sides, on
the assumption that these groups have money and can be
extorted. Lest America sets a date soon, there will
not be educated Iraqis left alive (over 100,000 have
left Iraq) to provide services in the country. Setting
a date will produce immediate “entre-Irakiens”
negotiations for the formation of some sort of truce,
as the French keep insisting. But without a clear sign
that the occupation is coming to an end Iraq is
doomed. The Bush meeting with Hakim, leader of SCIRI,
was meant as a substitute for meeting with Iran. But
it is to no avail until the US clearly shows that it
is giving up its occupation in force of Iraq. US
advisers dispersed, not the the Iraqi army, but to all
Shia and Sunni village militias will, as in Vietnam,
create the self-confidence needed to promote
concessions and national unity. But Sadr must be shown
that Iraqi nationalists are those favored by the US,
not Iran lackeys. The US must make a truce with him so
he can feel safe to reconcile with the Sunnis against
the Iran run SCIRI before we withdraw.